For
better and for worse, the United States in Iraq performed the
geopolitical equivalent of falling on a grenade -- that we triggered
ourselves. That is, we pulled the pin; we pulled out Saddam, and we set
off a huge explosion in the form of a Shiite-Sunni contest for power.Thousands
of Iraqis were killed along with more than 4,700 American troops, but
the presence of those U.S. troops in and along Iraq's borders prevented
the violence from spreading.

The
lunatic really believes what he writes. After all the harm he's caused
Iraq, grasp that the gas bag won't take the blame for what he did. So
he wants to rewrite it. 'Yeah, things are rough but thank goodness the
US landed on that grenade.'

Except,
of course, that didn't happen. The US military is largely (though not
completely) out of Iraq and the war continues. The killing continues,
the dying continues. That's not a single explosion or "a grenade,"
idiot. No, that's a US-created mine field. Which the US military was
largely pulled off of but ut of but which Iraqis have to try to live
in. Tip-toeing across a mine field daily. John Catalinotto (Workers World) notes,
"Cholera, a gastrointestinal disease, and typhoid, which had been
virtually eradicated in Iraq by 1989, made a comeback under Western
imperalist occupation. Today, the electricity and water supply systems
in Baghdad are in even worse conditions than in 2008." Maybe what
landed on a grenade was Thomas Friedman's brain?

If
Thomas Friedman had any ethics, he'd be on his knees in public begging
forgiveness from the entire world and especially from the Iraqi people
for his role in beating the War Drums and cheerleading it and lying and
being completely wrong over and over.

Yes,
we are all wrong some of the time. And I may be wrong more often than
anyone. However, it's a different level of wrong when your mistakes
impact whether someone lives or dies.

For
Thomas Friedman, it's all a glib view from overhead with a few tired,
worn out phrases casually tossed over the shoulder in passing. It's not
life and death. Clearly, from his writing, it's not life and death.
But thing is, the Iraqi people don't have the luxury of turning
everything into a glib World-Is-Flat cocktail chatter moment the way
Thomas Friedman does. Let us all learn to fear a New York Times columnist with an unshakable belief in himself and a desire to "help"
as he understands the word. There may truly be nothing more life
endangering that such a columnist, than such a beast. ("Himself," "he"
and "beast" are intentional word choices on my part.)

Today,
an Iraqi official made clear that Iraq had less than sunny thoughts
about the United States. Expressing displeasure over the intensified
conflict in Gaza (Palestinians and Israelies), the official explained
that oil could be used as coercion. Reuters reported
this morning, "Iraq's representative to the Arab League [Qais
al-Azzawy] said on Friday that Arab states should use oil as a weapon to
put pressure on the United States and Israel over the attacks on
Gaza." AFP notes
that al-Azzawy likened it to a move during the October Yom Kippur war,
"What happened in 1973, when the Arabs stopped oil exports to Western
states, is proof that this weapon can succeed in the battle between the
Arabs and Israel." Later in the morning, Shaimaa Fayed (Reuters) reported that al-Azzawy "later appeared to withdraw the remark, saying Baghdad would make no particular proposal to a League meeting." Devon Shire (Seeking Alpha) explores
the International Energy Agency's recent report offering projections on
oil prices and Shire is less alarmed by the price ($215 per barrell)
IEA is predicting but how they get to such a low number:

The
IEA in assuming that oil prices are $215 per barrel in 2035 is assuming
that oil production in Iraq will double by 2020 and then increase
another 2 million barrels per day by 2035.

Did I miss a memo? Is Iraq fixed?

Call me a pessimist, but I think there might be a real chance that Iraq can't deliver this kind of production growth.

Exxon Mobil (XOM) is currently in the process
of pulling out of Iraq if it can get a decent price for its interest in
the West Quarna project, which is a pretty telling commentary on the
difficulty of doing business in Iraq. Exxon is not a company to run away
from a challenge.

If Iraq is the central
source of future production growth needed to meet future demand, then I
think I'm still firmly in the bullish camp when it comes to the price of
oil.

Iraq
may very well double output by 2020. BUt that's 8 years away and,
currently, there's no reason to make such a prediction. Maybe there's
hope that a new prime minister (in 2014?) will be able to get things
going? Nouri al-Maliki is in his sixth year as prime minister and still
can't pass the 2007 White House benchmarks.

The big violence in Iraq today? Alsumaria reports
violence resulting from Nouri's Operation Command Tigris. Alsumaria
reports a clash between the Tigris forces and members of a Kurdish
official's protection detail left many injured (over ten and possibly
one dead). All Iraq News reports 1 person is dead -- a civilian and the outlet says all the injured were Tigris forces. Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reports
that 1 Iraqi soldier also died and states that clash took place in
Khurmato "when Iraqi soldiers attempted to search a house belonging to
Goran Najam, a member of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, officials
said. Iraqi President Jalal Talabani is the current leader of the PUK."
Sinan Salaheddin (AP) offers, "The
clash occurred as police commandos were attempting to arrest a Kurdish
smuggler in the city of Tuz Khormato, said Lt. Gen. Abdul-Amir al-Zaidi,
of the newly formed Dijla Joint Military Command. When the smuggler
took shelter in the offices of a Kurdish political party, police tried
to break into the building, but gunmen guarding the office opened fire,
he added." Peshmerga spokesperson Jabbar Yawar tells Alsumaria that this was a personal problem between the two and is now contained.

Differeing
details depending on the outlet, obviously. But what's going on?
What's at stake? Kirkuk is disputed territory. It's also oil-rich.
Iraq's Constitution, passed in 2005, explains how to resolve the issue,
Article 140 calls for a census and referendum. By the end of 2007.
Nouri continues to refuse to implement Article 140. In October of 2008, Corey Flintoff (NPR's All Things Considered -- link is text and audio) explained,
"The potential wealth has made Kirkuk a tormented city ever since oil
was discovered in 1927. Today the city's three main ethnic groups,
Kurds, Arabs and Turkmens, are vying for demographic and political
control."

While refusing to implement Article 140, Nouri's
Operation Command Tigris is seen as a way for Baghdad to take control
of Kirkuk. Jasim Alsabawi (Rudaw) observes,
"The Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) considers that formation of
the DOC as a provocative move aimed at undermining the sovereignty of
the Kurdistan Region, and reactions have heightened the tensions between
Erbil and Baghdad." Alsabawi reports:

[.
. .] Imran Samad, a resident of Kirkuk, believes political goals, not
terrorist threats, are behind the formation of the DOC. "We strongly
condemn the formation of DOC," he says.

Samad
adds that the government not only refuses to implement Article 140, but
is violating the constitution and imposing its will with force.

"We
fought against former dictatorships and gave the finest sons of the
Kurdish people in order to gain freedom and independence, and the Shia
were supporters of the Kurdish people through previous periods. But now
that they have power, they have forgotten all that and want to govern
Iraq as Saddam did," said Samad.

Al Mada noted
earlier this week that Kurdistan Regional President Massoud Barzani has
been attempting to work out a unified opposition position with Jalal on
this issue. Barzani issued a statement declaring that public opinion
is against it and that they have waited for Talabani to solve the issue
but no solution has come forward and what is taking place is
unconstitutional. The statement is posted on the Kurdistan Regional Government's website.
In the statement, Barzani notes that there were concerns and fears
about the formation of the so-called Operation Command Tigris and it
does nothing to help with the application of Article 140. Instead,
Operation Command Tigris was formed with intentions and goals that go
against the hopes of the Kurds, against the democratic process and does
nothing to help the Baghdad-government and KRG get along. Barzani notes
that he waited so that Talabani would have an opportunity to put into
play promises he had made about stopping the situation; however, that
has not come to be. All Iraq News pointed out
that State of Law MP Jawad Albzona immediately declared Barzani's
statement to be wrong and inaccurate. Not in the statement but also
pertinent, Nouri's refused to fund the peshmerga in the latest federal
budget which has caused additional problems.

Certainly. Anyone can be wrong. I'm wrong all the time. That's part of life.

I'm
also not concerned with 'tone' -- with one exception -- because you
should call people out in your own voice and not someone elses, we need
more voices hitting more notes not a choir of tenors all hitting the
same damn note. My exception? OLOFL's sexism is well known and I
did notice that Erin Burnett gets a special kind of attack different
from the men.

Today OLOTL accuses the
journalists of many things including "cherry picking." He's the one
who's cherry picking. Susan Rice went on television six days after the
September 11, 2012 attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi. She went on
multiple programs. Journalists have to condense. That is not the same
thing as "cherry picking." They're dealing with the totality of Susan
Rice's presentation.

Some try to argue she's
the messenger. Yes, I believe she was confirmed to be that. I believe
that's what an ambassador does. But the American people don't give a
damn if she was just the messenger or not. She went on television and
spoke about Benghazi. She was flat out wrong. Now if anyone wants to
argue that Susan Rice is incompetent, he might get some takers. But to
argue that she couldn't help it and blah blah blah? No. That ship
sailed a long time ago. She was going on every network Sunday morning.

CBS' Face The Nation, NBC's Meet The Press, ABC's This Week, CNN's State of the Union, Fox News Sunday
-- am I missing one? All links go to transcripts -- Fox News was smart
enough to put their video and transcript together. She presented the
same bad talking points over and over. Five live interviews that
morning? She should have known her facts before she gave the first one,
she should have known her facts and been up to date before the first
interview (which dismisses the claim that Saturday evening a new view
emerged and poor Susan Rice woke up Sunday morning, took out her curlers
and stepped in front of the camera). She used "spontaneous" in every
interview (Somerby attacks Anderson for noting "spontaneous"). Susan
Rice was the messenger because the State Dept wasn't going to lie.
Susan Rice shouldn't have been on TV. It should have been Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton or someone else at the State Dept, Vice President
Joe Biden, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, etc. Susan Rice?
Please. The US Ambassador to the United Nations?

That
was above her head. If she's stupid enough to think she can ace it,
then she's stupid enough to earn the blame for her idiotic statements
which -- even in the official White House timeline -- are now out of
date and wrong.

I've done press junkets. As I
go from interview to interview, I have someone telling me if any
information has changed and I'm revising my remarks to include that --
and that's the entertainment industry. Susan Rice should have known the
information that came in on Saturday before she spoke on Sunday. If no
one bothered to inform her, that's also on her because she should have
demanded it when she agreed to do the programs, "I need to know every
update that comes in between now and when I step on camera."

Is
that hard? Well so is life. And if you're going to go on TV to
speak about an attack that claimed the lives of 4 Americans (Sean Smith,
Tyrone Woods, Glen Doherty and Chris Stevens) and speak on behalf of
the US government, your job is to be prepared.

She wasn't or she lied. She was incompetent or she lied.

Actually, she may have been incompetent and a liar.

I see this as a lie, ". . . what we understand to be the assessment at present" (Face The Nation,
similar words used on other programs). That's a lie. That's,
according to the White House, the assessment early Saturday afternoon as
she got a briefing. It wasn't Saturday evening's assessment. It
certainly wasn't Sunday morning's assessment.

Again,
if you're going on TV to do live interviews and you are representing
the US government, you need the most current information. She didn't do
the work required. Maybe she wasn't smart enough to know what work was
required? Maybe her personal time Saturday and Sunday was more
important to her? I have no idea. But she went on TV Sunday morning
and gave out-of-date information according to the White House's version
of events.

She should have cared a little less
about protecting the White House and a little more about serving the
American people. Barack Obama is not paying her, the American people
are. She works for the American people and she takes an oath to the
Constitution, not to a office, not to a person.

She
wants to be Secretary of State and Barack wants her to as well. If
nominated, she'll be jumping over Senator John Kerry which should raise
eyebrows considering her awful record in the last four years in terms of
public diplomacy. And that's the only record she has. Yet she's going
to be put in charge of the US State Dept which is in charge of Iraq?
This liar or incompetent or both is going to be put over the billions of
dollars the US is still pouring into Iraq? America needs someone
trustworthy in that position. Susan Rice is a joke to many American
people. She's not up to the job and she comes in as a joke. This is
how Barack Obama wants to waste his time post-election?

I
thought the second term was going to be about getting things done. I
thought this was the term Barack was going to get to work. So choosing
between a qualified nominee (John Kerry) who is an automatic approved by
the Senate nominee and between the unqualified Susan Rice who already
has senators opposed to her, Barack's going to waste America's time with
Susan Rice? (Because he's a senator, John Kerry's an automatic
confirmation. That's how it goes historically. The Senate rushes to
confirm its current and former colleagues.) So America's going to have
to suffer through weeks of drama because Barack can't stop fixating on
Susan Rice? And let's be clear that, if Rice had any integrity, she'd
look at the situation herself, realize what a liability she is and
announce she was not interested in the post.

The phrase the White House and its employees need to learn is "for the good of the country."

Today Iraq was yet again slammed with bombings. In a month of violence that had already seen 80 die so far through yesterday (Iraq Body Count's
count), bombs left many dead and injured. It didn't look like it was
going to be that kind of day to the security forces and Nouri's
government. Early this morning in Baghdad, Alsumaria was trumpeting the fact that 3 members of al Qaeda in Iraq had surrendered outside of Ramadi. How quickly it all changed.

Wang Yuanyuan (Xinhua) offers, "The
deadliest attack occurred in the oil-rich province of Kirkuk in
northern Iraq, when four car bombs killed a total of nine people and
wounded some 32 others, a provincial police source told Xinhua on
condition of anonymity." Al Rafidayn also calls that the deadliest attack of the day. When the press is ranking the day's attacks, you know it's a day of deadly violence and Deutsche Welle adds, "The violence comes a day before Muharram, the Islamic new year."

Jane Arraf (Al Jazeera) reports,
"In Kirkuk, a city disputed between Arabs, Kurds and Turkmen, there
were at least three car bombs: one against the offices of a major
Kurdish party, one targeted a Turkmen party office, and another that hit
a major road. That was in addition to car bombs in the city of Hilla, a
Shia town. And one here in Baghdad that targted an army general [General Qassim Nouri -- Prensa Latina reports
that the general's bodyguard was killed in the bombing]. All in all,
these seem to be the major targets that have been frequent targets of
violence: security forces, Shia and, increasingly, political parties
in Kirkuk." All Iraq News says 9 people were killed and thirty-eight were injured. Shukriyah Rauf tells AFP, "My child was killed! His friends were killed! There is no security hear, our homes were destroyed!"

On the Hilla bombing, Reuters quotes
city official Hamza Kadhim stating, "A car bomb exploded near a
secondary school for girls and a crowded poultry market, leaving four
dead, including innocent students. It's a real vicious terrorist act."
Press TV adds eleven female students were left injured in the attack. All Iraq News reports the bombing left over 12 dead and over sixty injured.

So much of the violence is not reported. For example, today Lauren Williams (Daily Star) reports
a rape that took place last month which led to a father killing his
14-year-old son -- neither the rape nor the murder ("execution") of the
14-year-old garnered attention from the press in October:

When
a young boy was raped by a member of rival tribe last month in the city
of Ramadi, in Iraq's vast Sunni heartland of Anbar province, tribal
authorities were called on to settle the situation.

Amnesty
International has condemned a wave of bomb attacks across Iraq that has
reportedly killed at least 14 people on the eve of the Islamic New
Year.

The deadliest attack took place in
the northern city of Kirkuk, where, according to media reports, four
bombs planted in parked cars went off simultaneously, killing at least
nine people and wounding scores more.

Meanwhile
in the mainly Shi'a southern city of Hilla, a car bomb reportedly
exploded near a school and a crowded market, leaving at least four
people dead, among them schoolchildren.

Explosions
were also reported in the capital, Baghdad, and in the town of Balad
Ruz, in the province of Diyala. The attacks appear to have targeted both
Iraqi civilians and members of the security forces.

Amnesty International Middle East and North Africa Director Philip Luther said:

"Deliberate attacks on civilians can never be justified.

Such attacks show utter contempt for humanity and must be roundly condemned.

"We urge the Iraqi authorities to conduct a prompt, thorough and impartial investigation.

"Those
suspected of being behind the attacks must be brought to justice in
proceedings that meet international standards of fairness, and without
the imposition of the death penalty."

It's not
really about sex, it's about a CIA Director stepping down three days
after a presidential election. Supposedly, a CIA Director stepping down
to avoid being compromised on national security issues. It's about a
CIA Director putting himself in the spotlight with actions that
apparently threatened US security.

Was Petraeus a risk for blackmail? I think a strong case could be made for that and I didn't believe that until I read the report today by Sari Horwitz, Kimberly Kindy and Scott Wilson (Washington Post).
According to the report, his "closest advisers" told the journalists
that Petraeus had no plans to resign even after he admitted the affair
to the FBI. What changed? When he found out that the affair was going
public, he decided to resign. He wasn't bothered by it being known by
the FBI or others in the government. But he didn't want it to go
public. If the report is accurate, that would indicate that there was
the potential for blackmail and that does make him a security risk.

There
are other issues as well. It's about how the White House could not
have known about the investigation or the impending resignation prior to
the election. It's about how Petraeus is a potential security risk and
the administration -- as far as we know currently -- had no idea that
was the case. It's about what happened in Benghazi. Especially since
the mistress is now all over YouTube in an October speech she gave where
she asserts that the attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi September
11, 2012 -- the attack that killed Glen Doherty, Tyrone Woods, Sean
Smith and Chris Stevens -- was a result of the CIA holding Libyan
prisoners. Here's one example at YouTube.

Paula
Broadwell: I don't know if a lot of you heard this but the CIA Annex
had actually -- had taken a couple of Libyan militia members prisoner
and they think that the attack on the Consulate was an effort to get
these prisoners back.

And
that could be the tip of the iceberg. If Broadwell's claims about the
CIA holding detainees in Benghazi also turns out to be true, that whole
separate scandal is potentially far bigger, as keeping that secret,
along with the administration's already shaky history of truth-telling
on Benghazi, could suggest there really was a cover-up in the wake of
the attack on the consulate, that the Obama Administration lied about
ending the use of CIA black sites, and got their own ambassador killed
in doing so.The possible fallout of all that, even
coming after the presidential election, is virtually unfathomable, and
as a part of the story continues to center on a sordid affair the real
information about very really issues seems to be coming out as well.

In addition, Kevin Johnson, Jim Michaels and Carolyn Pesce (USA Today) reported
this afternoon, "On Monday, FBI agents searched the Charlotte, N.C.,
home of Broadwell, who is also Petraeus' biographer. Broadwell had high
security clearances as part of her former job as a reserve Army major in
military intelligence. But those clearances are only in effect when a
soldier is on active duty, which she was not at the time she researched
the biography. FBI spokeswoman Shelley Lynch said agents arrived
shortly before 9 p.m. at Broadwell's home. Lynch declined to elaborate
on what prompted the search." And Andrew Tilghman (Navy Times) reports
that General John Allen is now the focus of an investigation. The US
Defense Dept issued the following statement from Secretary of Defense
Leon Panetta today:

On
Sunday, the Federal Bureau of Investigation referred to the Department
of Defense a matter involving General John Allen, Commander of the
International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan.

Today,
I directed that the matter be referred to the Inspector General of the
Department of Defense for investigation, and it is now in the hands of
the Inspector General. I have informed the Chairman and Ranking Member
of the Senate Armed Services Committee. The House Armed Services
Committee has also been notified.

While the
matter is under investigation and before the facts are determined,
General Allen will remain Commander of ISAF. His leadership has been
instrumental in achieving the significant progress that ISAF, working
alongside our Afghan partners, has made in bringing greater security to
the Afghan people and in ensuring that Afghanistan never again becomes a
safe haven for terrorists. He is entitled to due process in this
matter.

In the meantime, I have asked the
President - and the President has agreed - to put his nomination on hold
until the relevant facts are determined. I have asked both Senators
Levin and McCain that the confirmation hearing on General Allen's
pending nomination to be Commander of United States European Command and
Supreme Allied Commander, Europe be delayed.

The
President has nominated General Joseph Dunford, Assistant Commandant of
the Marine Corps, to succeed General Allen at ISAF. I respectfully
requested that the Senate act promptly on that nomination.

These are real issues and that's why it was the topic on the first hour of The Diane Rehm Show today, Diane and her guests Mark Jacbosn (Truman National Security Project), Michael O'Hanlon (Brookings), Evan Perez (Wall St. Journal) and Rachel Smolkin (POLITICO) discussed the issues involved. With any story, someone will always go smutty (such as John R. Talbott at Huffington Post
today). Equally true, there will always be shrieking harpies like
Thomas E. Ricks who are more devoted to an individual (always a man, in
Ricks' case) than they are to the truth so they will clutch-the-pearls
and pretend that there's no story there and someone's being persecuted.
Spare us all from the Drama Queens like Thomas E. Ricks.

Oliver
Stone: Well the American media has come up with narrative that he's an
American hero who was betrayed by the woman. He takes the fall. It's
the classic. It sales well. It's a good soap opera. But it's not
true. I see no evidence of his heroism. There has been no success in
Iraq. The so-called 'surge' has been over-hyped by the media as a
success when, in fact, Iraq was trashed almost from the beginning to the
end. And it was in worse shape when he left. He didn't leave it
well. And then when he went to Afghanistan, he -- First of all, he
conned Obama into adding 30,000 troops -- was in Afghanistan with a plan
that he'd win with this counter-insurgency program. Well where is it?
Where are the results? They're non-existent. Afghanistan is worse
off. He's supervised the Predator explosion [the Drone War] and the
missiles not only into Pakistan and Afghanistan. And he's exaserbated
the entire region and the people that are there are going to hate us,
more so for civilian damage, collateral damage. And top of it, he's
built up this reputation -- I mean, first of all, as a military man, I
really think he's overdoing it as a show man because he goes in front of
Congress to talk about the counter-insurgencies wearing -- if you
notice, the ribbons grow every year. He's got now like a regular fruit
salad up here [holds right hand to left pectoral] and it's disgusting.
General [George] Marshall who was one of the greatest heroes of WWII is
famous for having been a modest man and going in front of Congress and
wearing hardly anything

Piers Morgan: I mean he had this reputation as King David --

Oliver Stone: Very much so.

Piers Morgan: That was what a lot of people in the forces -- and didn't always mean it as a compliment

Olive Stone: No.

Piers Morgan: It meant as he was slightly regal.

Oliver
Stone: But success? America values success. What's success in Iraq
and Afghanistan? He's left many weeping widows out there. And it's not
worked, counter-insurgency. Our involvement in a foreign country --
whether it's Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq I, Iraq II -- it doesn't work.
We go in, we have a lot of money, we make a lot of friends --
temporary friends -- they know we're leaving. And when we leave, which
they know we will leave, they value their lives so they are our tempory
friends.

Oliver
Stone: In American media, they're praising him as a hero. I don't see
the hero. I see a misguided policy in Iraq, an even more misguided
policy in Afghanistan. I don't think the 'surge' worked, I think that
was a lot of media hype. And I -- And I -- And I don't trust his
credientials. He never was in Vietnam but he wrote -- He made his
reputation writing about counter-insurgency in Vietnam -- in which his
main recommendation, a US military man told me, was, "You know what?
Get the press on your side." That was his counter-insurgency proposal.
And he's very good at that. So when he appears on Congress, I don't
know if you saw the rows of medals the first time, he appeared.

Gayle King: I saw them, yes.

Oliver
Stone: He seemed to woo the Congressmen. They were falling at his
feet. The military worship in this country has reached unhealthy
proportions.

On
videos. A number are asking that we note a video report. I agree that
normally we would. We're not noting it. "Off the record" is off the
record. I don't think the person discussing an e-mail they received
from a _____ at ____ (military institution) grasped what they were doing
on camera. That is great work. But someone still in the military?
That person would be off the record for a reason. He or she could be
drummed out. Could be punished. I like the person doing the report and
we have noted the person before and will many times again and this is
surely a topic I support and believe in. But I don't think the person
doing the report grasped that he or she had just outed someone and, if
not outed, started an investigation on the base. I'm hopeful that no
one else will notice. I think we're the last website left in the US
that gives a damn about that issue. So I doubt it will be amplified
by others. But I really think that report needs to be taken down and
edited. My opinion. When someone in the military tells you something
that could get them in trouble and they tell you it is off the record,
you don't need to be sharing what base they're on and what position they
hold. It is very easy, from there, to narrow down the _____s on the
base and to check their computer history and determine which one it is
without even asking any witnesses (who are also identified indirectly,
if you think about it). If this confused you, we'll note it Saturday
without noting what installation, what rank or where the report came
from.

Onto Iraq and the never-ending political crisis where tensions remain high among the various political blocs. Yesterday, Alsumaria reported that State of Law MP Sami al-Askari is calling Iraqiya leader Ayad Allawi a failure and he told Alsumaria that the Kurds are playing up the Sunni - Shi'ite divide. Today Kurdistan Alliance MP and leader Muhsin al-Sadoun tells Alsumaria
that al-Askari's remarks are not helpful and that the suffering that
has taken place has been under Nouri al-Maliki's leadership as people
have increasingly lost confidence in the government's ability to provide
as a result of the vast corruption and the failure to provide
security. al-Askari hasn't stopped trashing politicians. Al Rafidayn reports
he went on Alsumaria television tonight and trashed Iraqiya's Osama
al-Nujaifi who is the Speaker of Parliament. He stated that al-Nujaifi
is indebted to the Kurds who pushed for him to be Speaker of Parliament,
implying that he does their bidding. Iraqiya came in first in the 2010
parliamentary elections. After Nouri refused to honor the Constitution
and give up the post of prime minister and Jalal was bound and
determined to remain prime minister, that only left one post for the
political bloc that got the most votes. Iraqiya was always going to get
the spot and al-Askari knows that, he's just attempting to inflame
tensions with his bitchy nature.

Yesterday Al Mada reported
that Kurdistan Alliance MP Mahma Khalil had announced 150 members had
signed on to the bill to limit the prime minister to two terms. At the
start of 2011, when Iraq had protests going on across the country about
Nouri's inability to deliver basic services or jobs and the
disappearance of so many into Iraq's 'justice' system, Nouri announced
he would not seek a third term. Almost immediately this was retracted
though outlets like the New York Times that rushed to 'report'
Nouri wouldn't seek a third term went on to 'forget' to report that the
pledge had been withdrawn. Since then Nouri's attorney has repeatedly
reminded the press that there is nothing that can prevent Nouri from
seeking a third term. The proposed bill is an attempt to make it
illegal. Among those who support this proposal? Iraqiya and Moqtada
al-Sadr's bloc.

Suadad al-Salhy (Reuters) reports
on the bill and notes, "Since the last American troops left Iraq nearly
a year ago, the country's Shi'ite, Sunni Muslim and ethnic Kurdish
parties have been caught up in a power-sharing stalemate that has left
key oil and investment laws paralyzed in parliament. Kurdish parties,
the Sunni-backed Iraqiya bloc and even some rivals in Maliki's own
Shi'ite coalition failed earlier this year to trigger a vote of no
confidence against a prime minister whom they accuse of consolidating
power at their expense." Failed or were betrayed? Iraqiya MP Hamza Allrtani tells All Iraq News
that the people should not forget that when the political blocs came up
with a plan to withdraw confidence and merely needed Talabani to pass
it on to Parliament, Jalal refused to do so. Dar Addustour adds
that Kurdish MP Moahmmed Chihod is calling for Jalal to appear before
Parliament to give a status report on his months -- since the middle of
September -- of talks with political blocs to resolve the crisis.
Meanwhile All Iraq News reports Jalal has declared his support of Nouri al-Maliki.

Among the programs Obama's staff proposed for $200 billion in
spending cuts over the next decade were the military's health care
program ($16 billion), Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ($30 billion), the
government's pension benefit program that stabilizes pension insurance
premiums ($9 billion), the Transportation Security Administration ($18
billion) and flood assistance ($4 billion). It further confirms previous HuffPost coverage
that characterized the wealth of cuts that the president was willing to
entertain that would disproportionately impact the nation's vulnerable
-- the poor, the elderly, young mothers, students and veterans.
Lawmakers reconvene in Washington D.C. this week to begin negotiations
over how to avoid the so-called fiscal cliff, the series of tax hikes
and automatic spending cuts slated to go into effect on Jan. 1.

JUST AS CHILDREN ACROSS THE NATION ARE HAVING TO LEARN TO SAY, "NO, DON'T TICKLE ME, ELMO!
ESPECIALLY DON'T TICKLE ME DOWN THERE!," ADULTS NEED TO STOP WORSHIPING
A TURNCOAT WHO POSES AS A DEMOCRAT BUT REPEATEDLY STABS THE PEOPLE IN
THE BACK.

The former top US commander in Iraq from
February 2007 to September 2008 was General David Petraeus. Late
Friday, Petraeus resigned as CIA Director citing an affair. If this is
indeed the reason he stepped down, an affair, if that made him subject
to blackmail, then he wasn't properly vetted because he had 'intense'
relationships with many female journalists while he was in Iraq and that
should have come up when he was up for the post of CIA Director.

Today on Democracy Now! -- no link to that trash -- Amy Goodman again spoke with CIA contractor Juan Cole
and supposedly they talked about counter-insurgency but that would
require honesty and you don't get honesty from those currently on the
CIA payroll. Michael Crowley's dishonest at Time magazine but we'll put that down to a reluctance to tell the 'ugly truth' about counter-insurgency.

As Iraq began to stabilize in 2007 and 2008, counterinsurgency got much of the credit. Soon the theory caught fire in Washington: Think tanks hired
and the media spotlighted some of the doctrine's many well-educated
(and combat tested) proponents. The U.S. military developed more counterinsurgency training
programs for its troops, offering tips on things like making nice with
village elders and knowing when to let the enemy escape rather than risk
high civilian combat casualties. This was a form of warfare that even
many liberals (perhaps misguidedly) saw as kinder and gentler enough than the usual shock and awe to tolerate.

Tips
on making nice? That sort of leaves out the violence and intimidation,
doesn't it? Counter-insurgency isn't just handing out a bunch of water
bottles, it's about getting a native people to turn on their own. That
means ratting out fellow Iraqis to foreigner invaders. And the ratting
out? What comes after that? Do the foreign invaders just hand out
daisies? No. They take out the fingered.

Counter-insurgency did not emerge during the Iraq War. It has a long history. It failed in Vietnam (even the CIA admits that)
and it generally does fail. But before that's apparent, a lot of people
are killed and a lot of people are harmed. Crowley gets closer to the
truth in this passage:

Those
sort of targeted assassinations aren't quite the opposite of
counterinsurgency. (That would be carpet-bombing.) But they fly in the
face of the doctrine in multiple ways. Drone strikes -- which often kill
unlucky civilians -- are enraging local populations in countries like
Pakistan and Yemen, risking "damaging and counter productive" effects for U.S. interests. At least one recent would-be terrorist plotting to attack America has said
he was motivated by drone attacks in Pakistan. Counterinsurgency
requires huge numbers of troops to protect and build relationships with
local populations. Drone-based counter-terrorism strategy requires few
if any boots on the ground. Death is rained down anonymously, typically
no explanation or apology for "collateral damage."

Of course, death isn't 'rained down anonymously.' The surivovrs blame the US government for the deaths. As Kimberly Wilder (On the Wilder Side) noted yesterday,
the immediate effect of the Petraeus saga is that he may not be
testifying to Congress about the Benghazi attack that claimed the lives
of Glen Doherty, Tyrone Woods, Sean Smith and Chris Stevens. The
editorial board of the Orlando Sentinel argues, "Lawmakers
should not let the tabloid-worthy story at the CIA sidetrack them from a
thorough investigation into the security failures in the attack in
Benghazi. They should insist on hearing directly from Petraeus -- even
though he's no longer in charge." The editorial board of the Chicago Tribune agrees,
"Petraeus should volunteer to testify at the hearing. There are already
many questions about what happened in and after the attack in Benghazi,
and his abrupt departure from the CIA has created more suspicion. There
is only one reason for him not to testify -- to spare himself more
public embarrassment."

One
hearing on Benghazi this week will be presided over by Senator Dianne
Feinstein who is the Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee. She
told Chris Wallace yesterday (on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace)
that she wasn't told about the investigation of Petraeus until Friday,
"We received no advanced notice. It was like a lightning bolt. The way
I found out, I came back to Washington, Thursday night. Friday
morning, the director told me there were a number of calls from press
about this. I called David Petraeus. And as a matter of fact I had had
an appointment with him, at 3:00 that afternoon, and that was
canceled." When were others told, such as the president? Mike Levine, Chatherine Herridge and Judson Berger (Fox News) report
that despite Attorney General Eric Holder being informed Petreaus was
part of an ongoing FBI probe, the White House states "the president did
not find out about the situation until last Thursday." The editorial board of the Washington Post argues that if these are the facts -- with nothing else to be added -- they don't believe Petraeus should have resigned:

THE RESIGNATION of David Petraeus
as CIA director is a serious blow to the nation's national security
leadership, and it comes at an unfortunate moment. With the expected
departure of Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and a possible
reshuffling of senior officials at the National Security Council,
President Obama could have benefited particularly from Mr. Petraeus's
knowledge and seasoning as he begins to grapple with second-term
challenges in Iran, Afghanistan, Syria and elsewhere. Mr. Petraeus
understands those issues as well as any American, and his record of
service as a military commander is without equal in his generation.

Given those facts, some have questioned whether Mr. Obama should have accepted Mr. Petraeus's resignation.
The CIA director was found to have committed no crime. Adultery, which
he confessed to, is not uncommon, including presumably among his
agency's staff. However, in our view the president made the right call.
Mr. Petraeus's failing was not merely an illicit relationship; he
recklessly used a Gmail account to send explicit messages and, as a
result, was swept up in an FBI investigation of alleged cyberstalking. Such behavior would not be acceptable in the private sector, or in the military, as Mr. Petraeus recognized.

The Chicago Tribune editorial notes
that the woman Petraeus had an affair with had access to classified
documents (which Petraeus states must have come from someone else) and
that she gave a speech in October where she declared the attack on the
Benghazi facility was because the CIA was holding Libyans in a secret
prison there.

Moving
over to Iraq where the prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, is supposed to
run Iraq, not ruin the country. Possibly he misunderstood? He's forever
in search of new enemies to tick off. For example, from Friday's snapshot:

After
the decision last month to buy billions of weapons from Russia, it may
appear Russia and Iraq are getting very close -- and they might be. But
friendly? Do you threaten a friend? AFP reports,
"Baghdad has told Russian energy giant Gazprom to either cancel its
energy contracts in Iraq's autonomous Kurdish region or abandon its work
with the central government, a spokesperson said on Friday."

October 9th,
Nouri was strutting across the world stage as he inked a $4.2 billion
weapons deal with Russia. Then something happened 30 days later and the
status of the deal became in question. Was it all just buyer's remorse
over a big-ticket item? Saturday, Mohammed Tawfeeq and Joe Sterling (CNN) reported:

Iraq's
prime minister has canceled a recently signed arms deal with Russia
after "suspicions over corruption" surfaced, his spokesman told CNN on
Saturday.Under the $4.2 billion deal forged last month, Russia would deliver attack helicopters and mobile air-defense systems to Iraq.

Amani Aziz (Al Mada) reported that there are senior Iraqi government officials who are involved with a brother of Russian President Vladimir Putin. All Iraq News noted there are calls for Nouri to step forward and clear his name. Al Rafidayn added
Nouri spokesperson Ali al-Moussawi announced that the deal is off.
New contracts may be needed, he said, because weapons are, but the deal
is off. AP hedged the bets going with language about the deal being "reconsidered" and in "turnaround." Reuters spent the day providing constant updates and in their third one they noted, "In
a confusing exchange, the announcement by Prime Minister Nuri
al-Maliki's office was immediately contradicted by the acting defence
minister who denied the corruption charges and said the Russian arms
deals were still valid." RIA Novosti reminded, "At
the time the deal was announced in October, the Russian press had
hailed it as the country's largest since 2006. Under the contract,
Moscow is to supply 30 Mil Mi-28NE night/all-weather capable attack helicopters, and 50 Pantsir-S1 gun-missile short-range air defense systems." Al Mada reports today that Iraqiya is demanding Nouri provide a report to Parliament explaining the details of the weapons deal with Russia.

If the deal is off, Nouri looks rather poor on the world stage. But then, he already did as Hiwa Osman (Rudaw) notes today:

Those
who saw the picture released by the prime minister's office of Nuri
al-Maliki inspecting fighter jets by knocking on the metal body of the
plane should not be surprised that he has decided to halt the deal out
of suspicion of corruption.

The
picture should have sounded alarm bells for the Russians, Czechs and
people of Iraq. He seemed like a man shopping for a car in a sales lot,
not a head of state buying strategic weapons. From the start, the deal
did not seem to have been examined well or to have gone through the
proper procurement procedures.

You
don't make a four billion dollar deal, take the bows nationally and
internationally for it, then cancel a few weeks later without your image
taking a huge hit to your image. That's setting charges of corruption
to the side. Those who hoped that, come Monday, something as basic as
whether the deal was on or off would be known were hoping in vain.

The World Tribune states,
"Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki has canceled a $4.2 billion
weapons contract with Russia amid allegations of bribery. But the
Defense Ministry,which signed the deal, has insisted that the project would continue."